[INTRO MUSIC PLAYS]
ELENA: Hello and welcome back to Hoo’s at the Writing Center! I’m Elena,
KARISSA: I’m Karissa,
SARAH: I’m Sarah,
KIMBERLY: And I’m Kimberly!
KARISSA: Arguments: we love to engage in them, we hate to hear them, and we definitely write lots of them!
KIMBERLY: Whether you’re writing a paper or preparing a debate, it’s always helpful to know what kinds of techniques are used that will supplement your extensive list of sources, obviously.
SARAH: We will primarily be basing off the definitions in this episode from Christopher Dwyer’s “18 Common Logical Fallacies and Persuasion Techniques” as well as our own opinions and experiences with different techniques.
KARISSA: So, without further ado, let’s start arguing!
ELENA: Disclaimer: for the purposes of our episode, we are exaggerating many different ideas to emphasize the fallacy mentioned. These beliefs are not reflective of HATWC Podcast or the SU Writing Center or Seattle University as a whole.
KARISSA: The first technique we wanted to talk about is the ad hominem. Um, which is kinda referred to as like sticking it to the man, um, or the person, and ah, it refers to an attack on this person. So for example, regarding their past personal traits, ah, as a means of undermining/opposing their argument without having to really provide any evidence. So it’s kind of like a loaded question cause that can evoke a similar effect but basically, criticizing the person’s past more than their argument, necessarily, um as a way of like kind of attacking their argument or opinion in that instance. Do you have any thoughts?
SARAH: Um, yeah I guess this one like, is very, um very common maybe I would say like, I just feel like this is kinda your usual “I’m right you’re wrong” um, situation, I don’t know. What about you? What are your thoughts?
KARISSA: Yeah, I don’t know if I love this one for writing. I know that I like use this a lot when I’m actually arguing, [laughter] in person with people. Um, but like I think it’s hard in writing just because unless it’s like used logically, oh in past writing so and so said this and their current research says this so what’s the truth so to speak. But yea, I know I use this one a lot, verbally.
SARAH: Definitely.
KARISSA: Maybe just not so much in like the written word.
SARAH: Just like with your pals. I’m- [laughter]
KARISSA: Remember when you said this, and you were wrong and it makes you um, a bad person, well now your argument’s invalid, sorry I don’t make the rules.
SARAH: [laughing] What a good thing to write in an essay. Um, and for each of these arguments today, we are going to be roleplaying a little bit. Get ready list-en-ers! [Karissa sings an action noise] We’re excited, you should get excited. Um, so for every argument there is just going to be a couple examples, just to give you a little taste of, um, each argument. So my example is: I personally believe that crunchy peanut butter is the superior type of peanut butter.
KARISSA: Yeah, well, your opinion isn’t valid because you don’t use the Bunny Ears technique when tying your shoes!
SARAH: Burn. [laughter] How dare you.
KARISSA: Absolutely roasted. [laughter fades out]
KIMBERLY: Another fallacy is anecdotal evidence, and it’s defined as personal experience. Anecdotes can be a very powerful tool of persuasion but are a weak basis for an argument. We cannot generalize one person’s experience to the population at large. Other people may have had very different experiences. If we account for many experiences, then we might be able to make some generalizations. Elena, have you used anecdotes before in an argument?
ELENA: Yeah, I’m pretty sure, I’ve used anecdotes, I feel like anecdotes are something that I use a lot and then have to kind of check myself with it because I think like, it can be really easy in arguments to center your own experiences, well because this thing happened to me like obviously that’s, that’s the way it is. In terms of specific examples, honestly the example we are about to read for you is something that has happened to me.
KIMBERLY: I don’t like where this is going. [laughter] I’m kidding, it’s not anything too bad. But yea, as I was coming up with the examples for this, for some reason, well some were easier to exemplify than others and I think anecdotal experience was just like, oh I think we use that so often, like you said, we center ourselves sort of in the narrative of whatever argument we’re trying to say. Um, I also think that this is, this sort of goes into credibility of like well I experienced it so therefore it’s like true, uh but ya know, um other people may have different anecdotes and can clearly refute against it. Uh, but anyway so we have a fun little scenario to exemplify anecdotal evidence. And go! Lights up. All right, the ultimate question, cats or dogs?
ELENA: To be honest, I think dogs are ten times better than cats. Because one time, when I was younger, a cat jumped at me and left me with a nasty scar. I didn’t even do anything!
KIMBERLY: It’s funny you say that, because one time, when I was younger, a dog jumped at ME and left ME with a nasty scar for NO REASON, so clearly, cats are superior. And scene.
SARAH: Alright, so going to our next um, kind of argument is called the appeal to authority. So it would be wrong to think something is true just because an authority figure said it is, however if it was an authority who is an expert in the field relevant to the issue, then it might be illogical to believe the opposite. Expert opinions are a strong source of credibility, given that these opinions are often based on empirical evidence. However, experts do not always agree when it comes to evaluating the evidence; and sometimes an expert makes a bold statement that lacks credibility because it lacks supportive evidence, in which case the appeal to authority would be a fallacy. Karissa do you have any, any good thoughts on this one?
KARISSA: I feel like this one is really common just in terms of research. And um, I don’t know why I’m always thinking about philosophy when I think of argumentative papers but um, like the appeal to authority while writing a philosophy paper, I’ll be like well Aristotle said this and then like I feel like there is a lot of name dropping that happens in, in research papers, whether you know the name super well or not. So yeah, I think although like it makes a good point it can be a little bit dangerous, um just because you know people are human, people are wrong sometimes. But yeah, I feel like this is a really common way to go. It works. If you can drop a name and then they’re credible and they’ve done their research, then yea I feel like this is a really strong one.
SARAH: Definitely. And I feel like we’re almost like, taught to write this way in terms of argument, like we need that evidence, and we need that like, peer-reviewed source to back up our claim and to support our argument and so, this is definitely another quite common one. Um, our example for this argument: WOAH! [laughing] What are you doing?
KARISSA: Turning the lights on in my car? Why?
SARAH: Don’t you know? My mom used to tell me that leaving the lights on in your car was illegal! And she’s my mom, soo she knows best. [pause] I’m unsure if this was, a credible source, [laughter] but to be fair, yes. All mothers are...
KARISSA: Still appealing to authority so I guess it makes sense but...
SARAH: True. [laughter]
ELENA: Another fallacy is an appeal to emotion, which is defined as aiming to manipulate, manipulate emotions or evoke an effective response in order to gain acceptance, as opposed to using logically compelling evidence. This can involve appeals to pity and compassion, um which are among the most common forms of this argument. And, I'm trying to think of a specific example because this has definitely, been used. I feel like it’s used when people are trying to make themselves the victim in a situation.
KIMBERLY: Yes, yes.
ELENA: Even if like they were clearly in the wrong. Because it’s a very easy way to just like flip the logic of the situation and be like well I was inconvenienced and like this ruined my day. Like I guess a specific example would be like every, one of my friends is a barista and has had so many experiences with this where like people just completely, I guess appeal to emotion if their order is messed up or something. And it becomes all about how like, they were having such a bad day and their day has now been ruined by this coffee, which is just like such a minor thing so.
KIMBERLY: I hate to say it, but as a Cancer, as a very emotional person, there- I can admit, I can be held accountable uh, for times when I made an appeal to emotion. Uh because I was desperate and because I so wanted to be in the right. And I also wonder, obviously my astrological sign does not justify the things that I’ve said, but uh, this is just so forward for my zodiac homies. But I also think it’s a learned trait, if I am to respectfully call out my mother, who I grew up watching and witnessing her appeal to emotions, uh in many different instances in order to get what she wants because, not to feed into the stereotype, but my mother really did get everything that she wanted. And she was always more than happy to, [chuckle] God, to really pull out the cards whenever someone has like inconvenienced her or wronged her in some way. And um I just think it’s a very, it’s a parental instinct to be like well I am a parent, I have a child, you’re not going to say no to me in front of my child, in front of my six-year-old uh, daughter. But um, yeah I just, I want to point that out that I think in some cases it happens naturally to individuals, I think we want to like have the person understand where we are coming from and the context that we are entering the conversation with, but it can also be super harmful and super manipulative in some respects. So be careful about what kind of emotion you are trying to convey or what kind of, um, what the implications are when you are, when certain emotions arise for you. With that being said, we are going to do another beautiful scenario written by yours truly.
ELENA: I’m sorry friend, but unless you find a more formal outfit, I can’t invite you to my party.
KIMBERLY: [Through tears] But you know how much I love my zip off pants! They’re a pair of jeans and shorts in one! [More crying]
ELENA: Those don’t count.
KIMBERLY: [Uncomfortably more crying] And scene. Wonderful acting. My theatre major’s really coming through.
ELENA: Perfect [laughs].
KIMBERLY: [Laughs]
KARISSA: Alright, so the next argument technique is the bandwagon argument, and it’s essentially an appeal to popularity. So, for example, it goes along the lines with “everyone else is doing it, so why don’t you?” or “most people believe x, so x must be true.” The bandwagon argument is often based on common belief statements such as, “everyone knows that opposites attract,” and that’s a common adage that is not the case. These are generally weak with respect to credibility, though. Um, as in that example. So Sarah, thoughts.
SARAH: I feel like maybe, like you were saying, a lot of cliches might come underneath this argument style, like opposites attract, or, you know, other cliches [laughs]. Um, let me think of one--
KARISSA: “Everybody wants to rule the world”
SARAH: Sure, you know, pull out those song references [laughs]. Yeah, but I also think it’s hard to—especially when you’re first writing an argument, or you’re in the beginning stages or just kind of learning about argumentative writing, it’s hard not to put cliches in there sometimes. Maybe that’s why, um, or—maybe that’s because they’re just so—they're cliches for a reason. Some of them are true, but I don’t think it’s potentially the strongest thing to put in an academic essay specifically.
KARISSA: Yeah, I think, um, in terms of research it’s really hard. I think it depends on what you’re writing about. But yeah, I do find this one really interesting because I think-- not to go to big with it, but the example we have kind of touches on this a little, but I think with like media and stuff this is a big one--
SARAH: Definitely.
KARISSA: It’s really easy to convince people. I think this is like one of the most convincing ones just in the sense that like no one wants to be left out of that, um, and I know even myself sometimes, taking the route of popular opinion is just easier, safer—maybe on like a lesser scale, but like yeah, I think this one’s just common because it is so convincing, and the media helps—like social media, news media helps with that as well, just like broadcasting it in the sense of like “everyone’s believing this,” like claiming it as truth, so I think that’s also an interesting thing to think about.
SARAH: Yeah, I never really thought about it that way, ‘cause like I really like that point because also you choose who you follow, and who you follow probably all believes the same thing that you believe, and they probably believe the same as each other, and so it’s definitely hard to get out of like that little bubble. It’s a really cool way to think about it. Um, our roleplaying for this argument...
Hey! Try this new coffee!
KARISSA: I thought you said you hated coffee.
SARAH: Ugh! But it’s all over Tik Tok. If I’m going to be famous, I have to keep up with the trends. Besides, if Tik Tokers like it than it must be good.
KIMBERLY: Another really interesting fallacy is, uh, referred to as begging the question. This is based on circular reasoning, generally resulting from an individual taking a certain premise for granted. So, in other words, it’s kind of like you’re going in circles with an argument. I actually had trouble trying to understand this a little bit, because it was very stated the factly definition, like, I just—you should just know what this means, and I was like “I really don’t.” But I guess it was defined—I guess, I don’t know. Elena if you have any input on this just because I really had to do extensive research on this one because I did not know what it meant.
ELENA: [Laughs] I mean, I feel like every argument my sister and I have could probably be classified as a circular, like begging the question argument [laughs]. I mean, I think it’s just ‘cause it’s like—I feel like, at least for me and my sister, we both use this when we’re trying to avoid either talking about the actual reason why we don’t wanna do a thing, uh, or yeah. I think it’s just an avoidance thing for us. So like, if I’m like “hey, can you walk the dog?” she’ll be like “no, I can’t walk the dog because I already walked the dog.” It’s just like not really giving a reason for why you should or shouldn’t do the thing or why you’re correct in the argument, it’s just kind of like inserting the circular thing, um, yeah. It’s like taking a certain premise for granted, like that premise might not necessarily be related, but you make it sound like it is relevant in this conversation.
KIMBERLY: Yeah, not that I—now that you mention it, it is just like a sibling thing because we desperately want to not do something and try to reasonably get out of it. Especially when you have a large group of, um, a large number of siblings, uh, you will desperately try to not—it's kind of like nose goes. You don’t want to do it and then the second that someone who doesn't wanna do it is the last person to touch their nose, it’s like “well I did it like this,” or, you know, “my leg is sprained,” which you should take care of, um anyway, we are going to go ahead and do our fun little scenario, and though it may not come clearly across as to how it’s being presented, just be mindful about the context of what we are saying and how you can find sort of the circular process in that. So, without further ado I will go ahead and begin.
Avatar is the greatest move ever because it is the number one top grossing movie of all time (that is a true fact).
ELENA: You really like those blue people huh? [laughs]
KIMBERLY: That second part was not necessary, but you see [laughs] I just needed person B to say something, but you see where in person A’s statement that Avatar is the greatest movie ever because it is number one top grossing movie, it ignores the sort of content that the movie actually has because it was the top grossing number. So, it’s like you’re being redundant in that sense, and you have sort of emotion. And I say that specifically about this certain fallacy just in case it wasn’t clear to those listening, so, that’s that.
SARAH: Alright, so, our next one is called the Black or White fallacy, um...oh my gosh, do you like black and white cookies? [Laughter]
KARISSA: I don’t think I know...is it like, half chocolate, and half sugar cookie?
SARAH: Yeah! Wait, have you never had one? It’s like, half chocolate, like it literally looks like a circle and it’s like half chocolate icing, half vanilla icing, it’s like black and white...black and white cookies, you’ve never had one?
KARISSA: I’ve seen them, but I don’t know that I’ve ever had one.
SARAH (in a shocked whisper): Ka-ris-sa!
KARISSA: I know.
SARAH: Gotta get on that. Sorry, I just really needed you to hear that.
KARISSA: It’s okay.
[Laughter]
SARAH: Um – so, Black or White fallacy. So, this argument style is the provision of only two alternatives in an argument when there are more options available. That is, numerous "shades of grey" are also possible, but are not addressed.
KARISSA: I do NOT like this one.
SARAH: [Laughter] Uh-oh, tell me why, tell me why.
KARISSA: Um, I just feel like...how do I wanna put this...I feel like it does not account for a lot. First of all, it excludes a lot. And just in terms of like, the situation you use it in, I think that um...it’s just not very productive, in my opinion, and like in terms of making your argument it could be productive, but I think in terms of like leading towards a solution or a specific idea, um, it’s not productive because it’s exclusionary to a lot of things. Um, I don’t like the idea that even in writing, that it has to be one way or the other, because I think that that’s not very reflective of, of life and the humanity of the person who’s writing it. Which is something that I think is, um...that I find to be really important, especially if it’s an argumentative paper, like there’s a person behind the argument; I think that’s worth considering. I think trying to pose it as one or the other isn’t always...it depends on the context, but I don’t think it’s always fair to writers or readers if you pose it that way, if that makes sense.
SARAH: Yeah, definitely. I definitely feel like also, just as a [sigh] society, we might be moving more towards this argument style, which is really frustrating because there’s no leniency towards, like, the gray, I guess, and like sense of black and white, and it’s...very scary as well, because obviously like you were saying, it...like our life is in the gray, and the fact that there’s just kind of two sides now is really...spooky. It’s really scary.
KARISSA: Yeah. Yeah, us theology majors at Seattle University are very fond of uh...the third way.
SARAH: Oh, YES, the third way! What is that?
KARISSA: So this...in terms of, like, writing in theology, it’s...you can’t do it [Laughter]. It’s almost impossible. But, I understand the effectiveness, like, if you’re trying to convince somebody of something. Yeah. It’s just not...my preference. We’ll put it that way.
SARAH: Totally fair.
KARISSA: Alright, so here is our example for this one!
KARISSA: You’re either getting pulp in your juice or no juice at all!
SARAH: Come on, Karissa, don’t be ridiculous.
[Laughter]
SARAH: Pulp! What a good word.
KARISSA: Do you prefer your juice with pulp or no pulp?
SARAH: You know...I don’t think I really care. Like, I forgot what kind of orange juice my parents got when we were kids, but...I don’t know! What about you?
KARISSA: I think it depends on my mood, but most of the time I don’t care.
SARAH: Mm. Depends on your mood, I like that.
KARISSA: Yeah. I think when I was little, it was more of like a bandwagon thing, ‘cause my sisters didn’t like pulp --
SARAH: Yesss.
KARISSA: Like, “Ew, that’s gross.” And my dad really liked it. But then I got older and I was like “It’s just...juice is juice, you know?”
SARAH: Yeah. It’s just a fruit in there, that’s what...you know?
KARISSA: Makes no difference, in liquid form.
SARAH: [Laughter] Exactly.
ELENA: Another fallacy is the Burden of Proof fallacy. So the definition for this one is when a claim is made and expected to be accepted because it has not been disproved or even adequately disputed. However, this does not mean the claim is true. As this issue often rests on potential (un)certainty, in such cases, it will require reflective judgment. Uh, which is from a source: King & Kitchener, 1994.
KIMBERLY: Apparently, apparently.
ELENA: Cited in beautiful APA style. [Laughter] Um...
KIMBERLY: I do have a bias, sorry.
ELENA: Do you have any examples, any thoughts for this one Kimberly?
KIMBERLY: I...you know, I think I also...I feel like...I think we all are guilty of each fallacy in one way or another, I think that the Burden of Proof fallacy, um, I think I probably have used it before. I think I have a way...I think my ego tells me I have a way of convincing others that what I say is true, or that like it’s very profound, or um, it’s so perfectly worded or poetically uttered, in a way that it’s like, “Oh yeah, people would believe me!” in what I say because of how I present it. But, I could be saying something so absurd, and I think there’s a lot of risk and danger in that, because then people are going to sort of look to you in the statements that you say. You know, when people start backing you up, and you have no way of proving what is said is true, then you’re in deep trouble there. I think that um, I think that, not to go back, not to sound like a broken record, but we can go back to the parent example, of you know, parents will sometimes say certain things that you kind of are just convinced are true, because they’re your parent and they know better, which is also a different kind of fallacy, which I think will be referred to or was referred, I have to check again because I’m so jumbled. But it’s also another fallacy to appeal to um, to have an authoritative figure say so. Or, um, because my mom said something when I was six years old I believed it was true. And she doesn’t have to convince me otherwise. So, yeah, that’s kind of my thoughts on it. I don’t know, Elena if you also had anything on it.
ELENA: Um, my only thought was—I think I’ve definitely used this semi-ironically but also like a little bit seriously when talking about supernatural conspiracy theories, because I think it’s kind of a fun fallacy to use, because I think it is difficult for people to argue with it because it’s kind of a known argument as you’ll see in our example. But, yeah, like definitely just when I’m learning about spooky history and things with friends and we’re like “oh, what if it was haunted,” and the one person is always like, “ghosts aren’t real,” and we’re like “are they? Prove it,” which isn’t really like an argument, but it’s kind of a challenge that they can’t really answer ‘cause how would you prove that?
KIMBERLY: That’s so interesting that you mention supernatural occurrences because our example is—it pertains to that sort of genre of things [laughs] if you will.
ELENA: [laughs] just genre
KIMBERLY: Genre. I don’t know why I try and like supplement my words with more words that also just come to me--
ELENA: Academia. It’s academia baby [laughs]
KIMBERLY: I know [laughs] Oh man, without further ado, we’re gonna do a little scenario for you portraying the Burden of Proof fallacy. Take it away Elena!
ELENA: I think I saw a UFO! I definitely saw a ship.
KIMBERLY: Aliens aren’t real.
ELENA: Can you prove they aren’t?
KIMBERLY: Guess not.
And scene. That was beautiful. That was truly—the acting in this, in all of these I’m--
ELENA: Incredible.
KIMBERLY: excited for everyone to listen to all of them one after another [laughs].
KARISSA: Alrightly, so our next argument technique is called Card Stacking, and it’s a method of argumentation in which important counter arguments are purposefully omitted or left out creating an imbalance of evidence to bias in the argument.
SARAH: Ah! [chuckles] Okay, so this one would be like--do-do-do-do—if you only kind of argued like one way and you don’t think about the counter argument kinda thing?
KARISSA: Yeah, or it kinda seems like you leave out information, so like, I guess if you over emphasized the pros of something, and like didn’t touch on the cons.
SARAH: Gotcha.
KARISSA: Yeah-- is what it sounds like. Or just like being really sneaky or skillful about the way that you address the counterarguments, where it’s like “oh, there’s nothing bad about what I’m pitching to you, even though there potentially could be.”
SARAH: Hmm. I don’t know I feel like—I think I had a paper in like the UCOR philosophy and the professor asked us if we could like create an argument, say the counterargument, and then prove the counterargument wrong or like that is wasn’t as strong as our argument, and I definitely think if you do that it makes your argument, and just paper, stronger than if you were to just not say it at all or just leave it out. I’m not sure. What do you think?
KARISSA: Yeah, no, I think that that’s a really important part of an argumentative paper, or an argument in general, because it’s really hard to read something or listen to someone that’s so dead set on their perspective, but yeah, I think the ability to disprove a counterargument is so important because it’s even more convincing, I feel like, than some of the techniques that we’ve talked about. If you’re able to say “I understand this other perspective, but here’s why I’m still right,” sort of thing—I feel like there’s a lot more like respect in that [laughs]. I mean if you—depending on how you choose to do it, but there can be a lot of respect in that, which I feel—just disproving through like logic and through reason and stuff is a really strong way to formulate your argument, and very, very convincing, so I feel like this one, maybe not overly convincing. In an academic setting at least.
SARAH: Yes [laughs]. I agree [laughs].
KARISSA: [Laughs] Alright, here’s our example for this one. You read?
SARAH: [More laughter] I’m so excited.
KARISSA: If you want a hotter bod, then take this diet pill! It’s got chemical agents that burn fat in your body and can give you awesome abs in just six days.
SARAH: But Karissa! What about all the side effects?
KARISSA: Don’t worry about those! Don’t you want awesome abs in just six days?
SARAH: Maybe not. Maybe [laughs].
KIMBERLY: So our next fallacy, ironically is referred to as the Fallacy Fallacy, and this is defined as dismissing a claim, which may be true, altogether solely because it has been poorly argued. An example illogical or with suspect evidence, or because a fallacy was used when arguing its case. Now, this one was also another tricky one for me because the redundancy really threw me off, so I’m gonna pass it to my costar Elena Selthun to go ahead and give their thoughts on the Fallacy Fallacy. Take it away Elena.
ELENA: I feel like all of the examples that are coming to mind are just based off of the examples that we have here because like [laughs]. But yeah, I don’t know. I think one example I can think of is, I had this conversation with a friend about like GMOs and yeah, I think what she was arguing was that GMOs are good actually because—or like are not a problem and I was like trying to make the argument that like no GMOs are a problem because they cause—they like screw up other crops basically, but she was like disagreeing with it, not because of that. She was disagreeing with it because my argument wasn’t very good [laughs] and she—it was kind of like we weren't really hearing each other as well, so yeah. I don’t even know what conclusion we came to with that because it’s not like it was a super important argument either, but it was a lot of just like I had kind of confusing reasoning for it and she was like—didn't know all of the GMO facts that I was bringing into it badly, but like, yeah. So, I guess that’s my example of it. I think it’s like when there’s a disconnect between two people, like somebody may have an argument that’s technically true, but like, maybe they’re saying it in an incorrect way or just not explaining themselves well, so the other person who already disagreed with that argument is like not hearing that.
KIMBERLY: Yeah, thank you Elena. No words were ever beautifully spoken than that. Um [laughs] I can’t offer any more input than that. That was actually very eloquently said. I’m so sorry if you hear me kinda rub my eye and spread germs all over. Bad habit, I know. Don’t do it [laughs]. In that case we are going to go ahead and give an example of the Fallacy Fallacy in hope that you can also find connections, because I think that this is sort of a—I think as Elena mentioned, it seems very common in different, in certain discourses, especially ones where like there are obviously very two distinguished parties and are trying so desperately to provide evidence, and I think there’s just a lot of—the word of the day is implications—there's a lot of implications of that, and you want to be mindful about it. So, we’re gonna go ahead and do a little theatre, again, for the umpteenth time.
These vitamin gummies are vegan, therefore they’re so much better than the artificial flavored ones.
ELENA: Just because it’s vegan doesn't mean it’s automatically better than the regular brand. You’re wrong. It’s just vegan for those who are vegan.
KIMBERLY: And scene.
SARAH: Alright, so our next argument style is called the False Cause Argument, or also known as Correlation, not Causation for all of you psych majors out there, all those stats people, those math people, those-- all people. It refers to the assumption that because two things are related means that one causes the other. So for example, if 100% of murderers drink water, therefore drinking water causes people to kill. Karissa, thoughts? Feelings?
KARISSA: Feeling this is very common, very convincing. I feel like the examples we have are a little bit drastic [laughs]
SARAH: [Laughs] Are you sure?
KARISSA: I don’t know [laughs]. But I think, like, in terms of smaller scale, no one is getting harmed here-
SARAH: Right.
KARISSA: It can be convincing, especially if it’s not exclusively like using numbers, if it’s just more of like logical, reasonable connections I feel like it can be really convincing and hard to be like “hmm, wait a moment.” But yeah, what about you? What do you think?
SARAH: Yeah, just kind of the same thing, I do remember I took like...just an Intro to Psych class and also my Stats class was always like “correlation does not equal causation!!!”
KARISSA: Mhm. Yeah, I think this is what I noticed showed up most in my life.
SARAH: [Laughter] Yeah? Like in your day to day?
KARISSA: Yeah, I don’t know what it is, but like there’s a lot of times in my mind where I’m like “correlation, not causation...” just like every day, I don’t know why.
SARAH: I like that reminder.
KARISSA: It’s good to have...have stored away, here. You never know when you’re gonna need to whip it out.
SARAH: Whip it out...[Laughter]
KARISSA: Like in this example:
SARAH: Here we go. Nice transition.
KARISSA: Every time I leave the party, it ends soon after. Therefore, I truly am the life of the party.
SARAH: It was one time! And most of us were just tired!
[Laughter]
SARAH: I will say though, in real life, Karissa Lopez, 100% life of the party.
KARISSA: Oh, thank you.
SARAH: Ends after she leaves.
[Laughter]
ELENA: Okay, our next fallacy is called the Gambler’s Fallacy. And the definition for this one is...it’s referring to the belief that streaks affect statistically independent phenomena. So basically, there is a one in two chance of a coin landing tails up, so based on this assessment, some might say if heads come up on the first flip, then it seems likely the coin will come up tails on the second flip. But this would be an incorrect assessment of probability, because coins do not have a memory, so it’s not gonna change. The same goes for roulette wheels. Every flip and every spin is new and so it’s not dictated by what happened previously. Thus, the probability of flipping a coin and getting tails eight times in a row is the very same as getting HTHTHT, etcetera. The conceptualization of the gambler’s fallacy is quite like the Representativeness Heuristic. Also cited from Kahneman, 2011.
KIMBERLY: Yes. Again, these are all – this is all from that one Psychology Today article, so... [Laughter]
ELENA: Love that, love that. Yeah, so...I mean, Kimberly and I both play Dungeons and Dragons. [Laughter]
KIMBERLY: We do.
ELENA: And the Gambler’s Fallacy is alive and well, uh – it's hard not to be when you’re, you’re rolling dice and you’re just really hoping. Like, so, basically in D&D if you get – you can get a 1 through 20; if you get a 1 it’s really bad, if you get a 20 it’s really good. So, if you keep getting 1s, then that’s very bad luck but it doesn’t mean that you’re more likely to, you know, get a 20 on the next roll, because you’re like, “Wow, I deserve this!” You know? But...I don’t know, Kimberly, if you have more to add to that.
KIMBERLY: No, I think, uh...while it is true that especially players will want – will think! -- that dice, the dice is going to be in their favor, um, unless you’re notorious for having bad rolls, like a certain...myself, for an example, um, you know, it’s, it’s hard, to...it’s hard to exist in a world where we are dictated by a certain object that tells us...that dictates whether we are successful or a failure in a certain situation, and you’re a competitive person. Now for myself, I’m a very competitive person. As we have found out, in this group, that Karissa and I are very competitive people! And I think there is a lot of...situations where, um, there are opportunities to be incredibly cocky and times where you get really upset and you think to yourself, “Well if I keep losing a certain amount of times, I’m bound to get a win.” Um, if you’ve ever played 8 Ball with any of your iPhone friend users, you will know that sometimes – sometimes – you lose, and hope that the next game that you play that your friend persistently tries to tell you to do with them, you hope that you will win. Uh...and it takes a lot of – and I think it ignores, sorry, going back and forth between my words – I think this fallacy sort of ignores what it means to like, have skill in certain areas, but also like, this is referring specifically about like, coin tossing! Or roulette wheels, or dice rolling, for D&D nerds. I think there is a certain...where this applies to, there is a certain amount of like, just...just uh, complete ignorance or surprise to whatever the object is going to be a result of, or like, whether it’s going to be your heads or your tails. And I think there are other moments where you’re actively trying to compete in an activity, that uh...you just hope that your level of experience in a certain task will give you a win, or will continuously give you a win, even after you’ve gotten a loss. It made sense in my head to say those things, and I have Elena’s head-nodding to affirm me, because a year of doing this kind of thing, you’d think I would – you'd think I would learn! [Laughter]
ELENA: No, that makes sense, yeah!
[Laughter]
KIMBERLY: Alright, with that being said, we’re gonna – we're gonna go ahead, again, for another round of...2 second theater, with Hoo’s At The Writing Center podcast group. Take it away.
ELENA: Obviously I lost this round of chess, which means I’m going to win the next one.
KIMBERLY: Or maybe you should practice more? This is your third loss...
KIMBERLY: Go ahead and place your bets down below in the comments section, to see who would win in a round of chess, Elena or myself. Uh, let’s just say, I know how to play chess.
ELENA: Yeah, I don’t, so...
[Laughter]
ELENA: Anyone who betted on me, I’m sorry, you just lost.
KARISSA: Next argument technique is the Middle Ground Fallacy, this is almost the exact opposite of the black-or-white fallacy. For example, when two alternatives are proposed, generally one on each extreme end, the middle ground fallacy incorrectly supposes that the truth must rest somewhere in the middle, or like in the shade of grey. However, it could very well be the case that truth rests in one of the two extremes.
SARAH: I think this is really funny, I don’t know if I’ve ever... [laughing] This is a funny one. I don’t think I've ever really had a problem with this one, the fact that someone is so set on the middle ground instead of the extremes I think is the opposite of what we usually deal with and so, I don’t know it’s kinda funny, what do you think?
KARISSA: Yeah, no, I agree with you cause this is how I think a lot of the time. [laughter] I tend to be a very non-confrontational person, um, I’m the middle child so...
SARAH: There we go, there we go.
KARISSA: Yeah, I feel like a lot of the way I think or approach an argument or conflict is very like, compromise, in the middle. I mean obviously it’s different if I’m typing away like “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” then I can take an extreme end. But I feel kind of weird cause this is where my brain immediately goes, even when I’m wrong.
SARAH: Moving into our example for this, middle ground fallacy, Karissa’s favorite.
I think lying is never acceptable, honesty is the best policy.
KARISSA: Well, I believe that lying is okay whenever you feel that you need or want to. You can’t tell me you’ve never lied before. [pause]
SARAH: Mmm, then I suppose it is okay to lie sometimes!
KIMBERLY: Moving the goal posts, that is another fallacy that refers to adding related propositions with just enough content altered to continue an argument, in order to avoid conceding after the initial claim had been successfully counter argued. Similar argument types that fall under this umbrella of fallacies include Special Pleading and No True Scotsman, which I do not believe is mentioned in this episode but feel free to look it up and see the similarities between the two. Moving the goalposts, I don’t think I’ve encountered this one as much but I think it definitely is a tactic of younger audiences when it comes to trying to prove yourself, um worthy or appeal to a certain group, to earn someone’s approval. And I say this specifically when—I don’t know if this has happened to you, Elena, but when I was in elementary school, and the teacher would ask to, like, carry something heavy or like, you have to, like, put up your chairs and stuff and I, living in a world where women are regarded as weak...weaker beings, I had to prove myself often that I was strong, and that I could put up my own chair, that I could put up TWO chairs, if I wanted to! And I think I was so consistently contested with that because of my identity as a woman. And I think being a fifth grader, that sucks [Through laughs] and so, like, boys would be, like, “Okay, if you can do that then, like, I dare you to, like, punch me or whatever or beat someone up” and I’m, like, I’m not gonna do that, first of all! And then all of a sudden, they take that as an excuse to call you weak because you can’t do this one other thing that they’ve suddenly, like, tasked you to do. That is just one mere example, Elena, I am sure you may also have another one, but I’m just saying that this is —When I was reading this one, and looking this one up, I think it’s a very popular one among younger people, but I also think it’s still pretty applicable for audiences today or you know, our generation, or whatnot. But, Elena, yeah, what do you think?
ELENA: Yeah, no, I just had to share [Laughs] an example because yours is very, like, deep and relatable, because yeah, boys are awful in elementary school about that and continuously. But this example, which just occurred to me is just kind of wild, in fourth grade I had this friend who--I don’t know if she genuinely believed this, but she was really intent on arguing that she could turn into a werewolf. [Laughs] Like— [Laughs] Like, with absolute seriousness, this eight-year-old girl would be, like, “I am a werewolf.” [Laughs] And we were, like, “How—No. Like, prove it.” So, I think she would use Moving the Goal Posts because she would always be, like, “No, no, like, you have to wait until the full moon.” And then, like, the full moon would come and—I wish I was making this up. Like, it’s somehow 100% true --
KIMBERLY: I really believe you.
ELENA: 8-year-olds are wild. So like, the full moon would come and be like, “You...what happened, you still didn’t turn into a werewolf.” And she was like, “No, no, it only happens in like, my dreams.” Like, the reasoning just got more and more like...out there, in order to make it so that we couldn’t disprove that she couldn’t turn into a werewolf. And like, I think we were unsure, to be honest, so I guess she succeeded in that.
KIMBERLY: I mean, as an 8-year-old, if someone claimed to be a werewolf, I would – maybe I would believe them! [Laughter] Um...oh, what was...I was gonna ask a follow-up question about this situation.
ELENA: Please do.
KIMBERLY: But I can’t remember what it was because I was just so enthralled by this idea of -- [Laughter] Oh! I was trying to say – what was that Vine, that was like, “In all...in all areas except...”
ELENA: [Soft cackling] “In all ways except physical, I am a wolf?” I think?
KIMBERLY: YES. That one.
ELENA: Yeah, and then he just howls?
KIMBERLY: Yeah.
ELENA: Mhm.
KIMBERLY: I think that was your, uh...that friend. That, that person.
ELENA: Yeah. I don’t know what happened to her! I hope she’s...thriving. Maybe she is a werewolf. Maybe we were all just...[Laughter]
KIMBERLY: If you’re out there listening to this podcast and you uh, you know Elena, um...I hope you’re out there living your dreams, and uh...
ELENA: Being a werewolf in those dreams, apparently.
KIMBERLY: ...living your best life. Um, I will...I will also add [Laughter] That as a child, I also have an embarrassing moment of like “I’m super special and supernatural than all of the other, you know, 7-year-olds and 8-year-olds out there.” And I was convinced -- I was a bit of an anime nerd, um, and still am, really, as a child, and I watched a lot of, certain animes, where they would portray, uh, ninjas. Uh, to have heightened abilities, and senses, and when I would play with my cousins and my siblings, all of my relatives, I was convinced that I was a ninja, and I was convinced that I could...um, whenever we would play tag, I would like, very dramatically close my eyes, and like, try to sense -- [Laughter]
ELENA: That’s incredible.
KIMBERLY: I would try and sense where they were and try to like, touch them, or like tag them, but obviously, I don’t have – I don’t know why I had to show you that I could close my eyes. But I -- [Laughter]
ELENA: The demonstration was great.
KIMBERLY: I guess – yes, I needed to demonstrate. [Laughter] I needed to demonstrate that I was...uh, I do have heightened abilities, and that, for some reason, uh, the uh, the genes that I have in my body were very drastically different than my sister and my brother. Um, I just got the great ones, you know? And I remember being convinced of, uh, doing that. And I think I probably, uh, did it in school, in the playground. Like that, that was – I was that weird kid that was like, “Look at me! I’m really cool and special! Look at all the cool things I can do! But like – oh, it’s not working today, because like, my...I’ve not like, uh, done some meditation, or some like, sort of training that an 8 or 7 year old would do –
ELENA: [Laughter] Your secret monk training?
KIMBERLY: Yeah! I didn’t go to the mountains and like [Laughter] live in a year of solitude, no. Um, yeah, so, with that being said, we’re gonna go ahead and do a little example about movin’ the goalposts, and hopefully you can find, um...also a, uh, a memory in yourself where you try to, uh, be a werewolf or be a ninja. So...
ELENA: I actually have psychic powers, like in That’s So Raven, I can prove it.
KIMBERLY: Okay, what’s the weather going to be like?
ELENA: Mmm, definitely sunny!
KIMBERLY: [A few moments later, it starts to rain]
KIMBERLY: Um, I thought you said it was going to be sunny?
ELENA: That’s not fair; you asked me at the wrong time! Technically, it WAS sunny for a little bit.
SARAH: Okay, so our next argument is Personal Incredulity. And, please forgive me if that is the wrong pronunciation, but! This argument style refers to the dismissal of a claim by an individual due to a lack of understanding of either the claim itself or the supports for that claim. So for example, an individual’s dismissal of evolution because they don’t understand it. Oh. My. Goodness. Karissa, this is the one. [Laughter] This is the one; we’ve definitely all heard it, people getting very defensive, or very...shutting you down because they don’t understand something that you’re saying, and it’s frustrating, ‘cause then they’re just not asking you what you’re talking about! They’re not asking you to clarify, they’re not asking you to define, but it’s like, “Nope, that’s actually wrong!” [Laughter] “Your big words don’t make any sense!” Or...you know?
KARISSA: There’s nothing like an argument that gets so heated, and you’re like, going at it, finally for someone to be like, “Wait, just explain it one more time.” And then you explain it to them and they’re like, “Oh my god, wait, yeah. Like I totally agree.”
SARAH: [Loud sigh]
KARISSA: Why did they just waste our time? Why did I get so worked up--
SARAH: Yeah.
KARISSA: -- when it was just a misunderstanding?
SARAH: Mmmhmm.
KARISSA: This whole time. UGH.
SARAH: And it’s really frustrating too, I don’t know if you get into this, but like, just with older generations, like our parents or our grandparents, like if we use a specific word, or like talk about something that they didn’t grow up with – and like, I feel like they’re almost embarrassed to ask for clarification, for help, because you know, they’re older than you, and like, “wiser,” but like, you know, new things are happening every day, and just to...learn from your children or grandchildren is...okay! But they don’t think that! So, then they get very defensive, and not just parents or grandparents, just anyone older than you, totally fair. But [sigh].
KARISSA: This is my parents’ favorite one.
SARAH: [Laughs]
KARISSA: Especially my dad! I don’t think he listens to the podcast, so I can say that, but--
SARAH: [Laughs]
KARISSA: -- Yeah, this is definitely fun!
SARAH: Yeah, it’s...It’s a rough one. [Laughs] It’s a rough one. Our example for this argument style: “I think the moon landing was fake.”
KARISSA: There are pictures, though.
SARAH: Yeah, and we also have photoshop and greenscreens, so there’s no way we could have sent people beyond earth! Come on! Okay well, can I... [Through laughs] Can I interject?
KARISSA: It can’t be built upon because if you don’t understand the science behind sending someone to the moon, then it would make sense. But if you were, like, just “ultra-conspiracy-theorist,” I feel like that’s another argument to be had [Laughs].
SARAH: There are definitely a lot of conspiracy theories out there, but that doesn’t mean that they’re true necessarily.
ELENA: So, the Slippery Slope Argument is the next fallacy. So, a Slippery Slope Argument is an argument that concludes that if an action is taken, other negative consequences will follow. For example, “If event X were to occur, then event Y would (eventually) follow; thus, we cannot allow event X to happen.” This is pretty difficult to refute because it isn’t possible for us to see into the future and guarantee that the subsequent event won’t occur. Often, after critically thinking about patterns in human history, it may be that the subsequent event is likely to happen, in which case, the slippery slope argument may not actually be illogical. However, such judgment depends on the context of the argument. Regardless, what makes the argument fallacious is that it avoids engaging the argument at hand. It adds a component that isn’t really relevant to the initial argument. Furthermore, the added component is generally pretty emotionally loaded (for example fear-evoking). Do you have any thoughts?
KIMBERLY: [Overlapping] Um--
ELENA: [Overlapping] I feel like college is a Slippery Slope Argument [Laughs]
KIMBERLY: I will say, yes, I do think college [Through laughs] is a Slippery Slope. I think it’s just a perpetual-- [Laughs] I think it’s a perpetual, like, sort of series of events that it’s like, “If I don’t do this then I’m not gonna achieve this and I’m not gonna achieve that” and then, like, so on and so forth. I think because as college students, we’re constantly thinking about the workplace post-grad[uation]. I think there’s a lot of slippery slopes, and I think I am definitely guilty of a lot of these—Of this kind of argument, even outside of college. I think earlier today I had two of my siblings show me their grades and they don’t have the best grades at the moment – and again, this is subjective when I say “don’t have the best grades” I mean they are on the border of failing according to their school’s sort of standards – and I had this whole sort of preachy moment to them because they’re young and I was trying to, like, allude to, like, “grades don’t define you” but also, we live in a world where [Through laughs] they do define you. And like the workplace and colleges are going to look at your grades and they’re gonna be, like, “Oh, this person is adequate enough to be a part of my institution or be a part of my...be a part of the college or the workplace” and people are going to, unfortunately, they’re going to judge you and they’re gonna look at you. And so, it is this moment that I was—I wasn’t trying to scare them. I think I may have done that and I didn’t mean to. But I think there was a moment of, like, “If you don’t get good grades now,” - and they’re middle schoolers - “if you don’t get good grades now, you’re not going to be going to the, like—Your—You're not gonna achieve your ambitions” that they want because both of them are both interested in art school for different arts...different art forms. But I was, like, you know art school might still look at your grades and still think you know “if this person’s got a couple of failing grades then maybe they’re not the one to be in our institution.” And I think that—I think we also just, in general, we live in a society where we feel that one event is directly going to affect another and we’re sort of—We live in this timeline that if we don’t achieve these things, then the next big thing won’t happen for us. But, Elena, if you have anything to add as well.
ELENA: I mean, I think that pretty much sums it up. Um, yeah, I feel like this argument is made a lot when it’s like you’re overwhelmed, whether it’s because it’s happening to you, or your siblings, or like somebody you care about, and you maybe either want to scare them a little bit, even if it’s like subconsciously. I feel like it shows up a lot then. But yeah, that my example, so we have another little skit.
Hey Kimberly let’s go to the party, it’s Friday night!
KIMBERLY: I can’t. I have a huge test on Monday and if I don’t study all weekend that means I’m gonna fail this class, never graduate, and never become successful.
ELENA: It’s one test! Don’t let it ruin your life.
KIMBERLY: Scene. Just reiterating again that these are all exaggerated examples and do not directly reflect the thoughts and beliefs of the Hoo’s at the Writing Center, or Writing Center in general, or Seattle University. We are acting!
KARISSA: Our next argument technique is called the Strawman Fallacy, and it’s misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack. So for example, someone in opposition to your argument refutes it often irrelevantly by claiming that you’re arguing in favor of something else. In this case the something else quote unquote is the Strawman and the opposition has purposefully built it in order to make it easier for them to refuse your stance even though there's something else was never argued for in the first place. So simply put, a Strawman is built so that it can be knocked down, but a Strawman is not directly representative of your argument.
SARAH: Honestly, when I listen—when I hear you talk about this one, I’m thinking more of like a debate almost.
KARISSA: Mhmm.
SARAH: I think that’s like almost how we were taught to—also I’m terrible at debating. I don’t know if you knew this. I just am very like hesitant and I get really anxious or whatever, but yes. So I feel like this argument is really how we were taught to debate, so like no matter if they say it or not just kind of blaming something else, like completely aside the argument really almost defeats your opponent, even in some way, just to kind of like discredit them almost... if that makes sense? And I think the example that we have here if we wanna read it really quick, does a good job of showing that, so if I were to tell Karissa:
I’d rather go to the movies than go to dinner.
KARISSA: Why do you hate socializing?
SARAH: I don’t, though. I just felt like watching The Avengers.
[Laughter]
So, her kind of bringing me down [laughs].
KARISSA: Accusing you of not wanting to talk to me.
SARAH: Exactly, exactly. Um, I think it’s a great example, but what are your thoughts? How do you feel about this one?
KARISSA: Yeah, I feel like similar to you—what you said before, it’s kind of how we were taught to debate, ‘cause I feel like—maybe it’s just the word refute, but that is like debate terms.
SARAH: Mm.
KARISSA: And the whole premise is like knocking someone else’s argument down. So yean, I feel like it can be kind of like correlated with jumping to conclusions, especially in the example it’s like “oh you don’t want to talk to me, that’s why you’d rather go to the movies.”
SARAH: Mmmmmm. Mmmm.
KARISSA: And it’s like, no there’s always some sort of reasoning behind that, you know.
SARAH: It’s almost like also very insecure in the way that you just put it kind of like “oh you don’t wanna do this” and it’s like “no I didn’t say that.”
KARISSA: Yeah.
SARAH: Very quick to pounce, to judge.
KARISSA: Mhmm. Which is why it’s so good in debate ‘cause then you can catch people off guard and be like “whoa, whoa, whoa,” and they can’t always defend themselves, so I guess, if you wanna go into debate...
SARAH: [laughs]
KARISSA: I’m no expect or anything, because I’ve lost every debate I’ve had to perform [laughs].
SARAH: Me as well [laughs].
KARISSA: But I mean this seems like it could work.
SARAH: Exactly.
KARISSA: Do it. I didn’t and use this in your debate.
SARAH: [Laughs] love that. In every debate I’m always just—I'm either really quiet, don’t say a thing or I’m like “WHOA, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, let me--” [laughs]
KARISSA: Let me step on your toes really quick.
SARAH: Yeah, let me back it up.
[Overlapping laughter]
KIMBERLY: With that being said, we are going to go ahead and talk about our last fallacy mentioned for this episode, and I have failed to look up the pronunciation for this.
ELENA: Yeah, it’s Tu Quoque.
KIMBERLY: Tu Quo-- Tu Quoque. Tu Quoque. Thank you.
ELENA: Yeah, it’s Latin.
KIMBERLY: Thank you English major. Um, [laughs] Tu Quoque is translated from Latin as “you too,” or the argument of hypocrisy, refers to avoiding refutation or critique by reverting the same criticism back on the accuser, without addressing the initial refutation. Refutation, that is a funny word. Another way of looking at this fallacy is as challenging a claim by asserting that the claimant’s behavior is inconsistent with the conclusion they have drawn. In this context, it is a type of ad hominem that rejects a proposition based on the traits of the claimant. For example, in response to the claim that "Eating fast food is unhealthy": “But I saw you eat a burger and fries for lunch only a few hours ago!" Is an example of Tu Quoque. Wow, you learn something new every day [laughs].
ELENA: Yeah, I definitely use this with my roommates when we are accusing each other of not getting enough sleep [laughs]. Specifically, my roommate will be like “what time did you go to bed?” and I’ll be like “oh, 2a.m.” and they’ll be like “you need to sleep more,” and I’ll be like “do not be a hypocrite, I know you were awake at X amount of unreasonable time,” and then it doesn’t go anywhere because it’s just two sleepless people calling each other out, so [laughs].
KIMBERLY: Welcome to the world of college students and friendships in college [laughs], which is “I care about you, but you need to stop doing this really bad habit,” and then the other person is saying, “I really care about you, but you can’t be a hypocrite and tell me to stop doing this bad habit because you are also an instigator for doing this bad habit,” and it’s really fun. But also, we should all get enough sleep, let’s make that clear. If we’re going to endorse something it’s going to be you should get eight hours-ish of sleep. And that is also a Tu Quoque because I do not get enough sleep at all [laughs]. Anyway, we’re gonna go ahead [laughs]
ELENA: [Laughs] Com 'on Kimberly let’s do it.
KIMBERLY: Elena, you should really stop dabbing, it’s so old fashioned.
ELENA: Kimberly! I saw you dabbing like a week ago, hypocrite!
KIMBERLY: More like right now [grunts].
ELENA: Wow. Kimberly just dabbed. Just so you know [laughs].
KIMBERLY: Listen [laughs], I’ve stopped doing it. I’ve done more of a whoa than a dab. I know Elena’s disappointed in me--
ELENA: Yeah [laughs]
KIMBERLY: But I feel like if I can also call out someone in the Hoo’s at the Writing Center podcast team it’s also Karissa, let’s be honest. She’s also guilty of these things. We are what you call: the Tik Tokers of the group [laughs].
ELENA: Is that a title that you wear with pride or...? [Laughs]
KIMBERLY: No, not at all [laughs]
ELENA: Just painful self-awareness [laughs some more]
KIMBERLY: I’m just painfully aware that I spend too much time on Tik Tok and I’m trying to keep up with all the latest trends and gestures that we have [Laughter] Uh, and dances! But dances are a lot harder! You know? It’s a lot of choreography and effort, and, you know, I’m -- there’s only so much that I can do as a...an influencer [Laughter]
ELENA: You heard it here first, folks, Kimberly’s an influencer now. [Laughter]
KIMBERLY: Yeah, I am an influencer – I'm a...I’m a “bring back the hipster” influencer. You know? Where are the hipsters at?
SARAH: Okay, so – while this list does not include all the many different techniques out there, we hope that it will give you a sense of what to use and more so, what to avoid, so that you look credible!
KIMBERLY: Be sure to check out our first episode of the HATWC Podcast where we talk about ADHD and Neurodivergence with Ali Shaw! If you have episode ideas that you would like Hoo’s at the Writing Center to do, fill out this Microsoft Form, which will be in the description box down below or above, depending on how you are listening to this episode!
SARAH: Additionally, check out our Writing Center blog for transcribed versions of episodes and for posts by our own Writing Center Staff! Read posts like “The Great Toni Morrison” by Sabrina Klindworth or “’Green Thumbs’ Are a Myth” by Elena Selthun! And both of those wonderful people are on our podcast team now! Woo woo WOO!
KARISSA: Follow our social media @suwritingcenter on Instagram, Seattle U Writing Center on Facebook, and @writingcentersu on Twitter!
ELENA: With that, stay safe, take care of one another, and this has been another episode of--
[In attempted unison]: HOO, HOO, HOO’S AT THE WRITING CENTER!
SARAH & KARISSA: We are!
[Laughter]
SARAH: Yeah, yeah!
[OUTRO PLAYS]
ELENA: Hello and welcome back to Hoo’s at the Writing Center! I’m Elena,
KARISSA: I’m Karissa,
SARAH: I’m Sarah,
KIMBERLY: And I’m Kimberly!
KARISSA: Arguments: we love to engage in them, we hate to hear them, and we definitely write lots of them!
KIMBERLY: Whether you’re writing a paper or preparing a debate, it’s always helpful to know what kinds of techniques are used that will supplement your extensive list of sources, obviously.
SARAH: We will primarily be basing off the definitions in this episode from Christopher Dwyer’s “18 Common Logical Fallacies and Persuasion Techniques” as well as our own opinions and experiences with different techniques.
KARISSA: So, without further ado, let’s start arguing!
ELENA: Disclaimer: for the purposes of our episode, we are exaggerating many different ideas to emphasize the fallacy mentioned. These beliefs are not reflective of HATWC Podcast or the SU Writing Center or Seattle University as a whole.
KARISSA: The first technique we wanted to talk about is the ad hominem. Um, which is kinda referred to as like sticking it to the man, um, or the person, and ah, it refers to an attack on this person. So for example, regarding their past personal traits, ah, as a means of undermining/opposing their argument without having to really provide any evidence. So it’s kind of like a loaded question cause that can evoke a similar effect but basically, criticizing the person’s past more than their argument, necessarily, um as a way of like kind of attacking their argument or opinion in that instance. Do you have any thoughts?
SARAH: Um, yeah I guess this one like, is very, um very common maybe I would say like, I just feel like this is kinda your usual “I’m right you’re wrong” um, situation, I don’t know. What about you? What are your thoughts?
KARISSA: Yeah, I don’t know if I love this one for writing. I know that I like use this a lot when I’m actually arguing, [laughter] in person with people. Um, but like I think it’s hard in writing just because unless it’s like used logically, oh in past writing so and so said this and their current research says this so what’s the truth so to speak. But yea, I know I use this one a lot, verbally.
SARAH: Definitely.
KARISSA: Maybe just not so much in like the written word.
SARAH: Just like with your pals. I’m- [laughter]
KARISSA: Remember when you said this, and you were wrong and it makes you um, a bad person, well now your argument’s invalid, sorry I don’t make the rules.
SARAH: [laughing] What a good thing to write in an essay. Um, and for each of these arguments today, we are going to be roleplaying a little bit. Get ready list-en-ers! [Karissa sings an action noise] We’re excited, you should get excited. Um, so for every argument there is just going to be a couple examples, just to give you a little taste of, um, each argument. So my example is: I personally believe that crunchy peanut butter is the superior type of peanut butter.
KARISSA: Yeah, well, your opinion isn’t valid because you don’t use the Bunny Ears technique when tying your shoes!
SARAH: Burn. [laughter] How dare you.
KARISSA: Absolutely roasted. [laughter fades out]
KIMBERLY: Another fallacy is anecdotal evidence, and it’s defined as personal experience. Anecdotes can be a very powerful tool of persuasion but are a weak basis for an argument. We cannot generalize one person’s experience to the population at large. Other people may have had very different experiences. If we account for many experiences, then we might be able to make some generalizations. Elena, have you used anecdotes before in an argument?
ELENA: Yeah, I’m pretty sure, I’ve used anecdotes, I feel like anecdotes are something that I use a lot and then have to kind of check myself with it because I think like, it can be really easy in arguments to center your own experiences, well because this thing happened to me like obviously that’s, that’s the way it is. In terms of specific examples, honestly the example we are about to read for you is something that has happened to me.
KIMBERLY: I don’t like where this is going. [laughter] I’m kidding, it’s not anything too bad. But yea, as I was coming up with the examples for this, for some reason, well some were easier to exemplify than others and I think anecdotal experience was just like, oh I think we use that so often, like you said, we center ourselves sort of in the narrative of whatever argument we’re trying to say. Um, I also think that this is, this sort of goes into credibility of like well I experienced it so therefore it’s like true, uh but ya know, um other people may have different anecdotes and can clearly refute against it. Uh, but anyway so we have a fun little scenario to exemplify anecdotal evidence. And go! Lights up. All right, the ultimate question, cats or dogs?
ELENA: To be honest, I think dogs are ten times better than cats. Because one time, when I was younger, a cat jumped at me and left me with a nasty scar. I didn’t even do anything!
KIMBERLY: It’s funny you say that, because one time, when I was younger, a dog jumped at ME and left ME with a nasty scar for NO REASON, so clearly, cats are superior. And scene.
SARAH: Alright, so going to our next um, kind of argument is called the appeal to authority. So it would be wrong to think something is true just because an authority figure said it is, however if it was an authority who is an expert in the field relevant to the issue, then it might be illogical to believe the opposite. Expert opinions are a strong source of credibility, given that these opinions are often based on empirical evidence. However, experts do not always agree when it comes to evaluating the evidence; and sometimes an expert makes a bold statement that lacks credibility because it lacks supportive evidence, in which case the appeal to authority would be a fallacy. Karissa do you have any, any good thoughts on this one?
KARISSA: I feel like this one is really common just in terms of research. And um, I don’t know why I’m always thinking about philosophy when I think of argumentative papers but um, like the appeal to authority while writing a philosophy paper, I’ll be like well Aristotle said this and then like I feel like there is a lot of name dropping that happens in, in research papers, whether you know the name super well or not. So yeah, I think although like it makes a good point it can be a little bit dangerous, um just because you know people are human, people are wrong sometimes. But yeah, I feel like this is a really common way to go. It works. If you can drop a name and then they’re credible and they’ve done their research, then yea I feel like this is a really strong one.
SARAH: Definitely. And I feel like we’re almost like, taught to write this way in terms of argument, like we need that evidence, and we need that like, peer-reviewed source to back up our claim and to support our argument and so, this is definitely another quite common one. Um, our example for this argument: WOAH! [laughing] What are you doing?
KARISSA: Turning the lights on in my car? Why?
SARAH: Don’t you know? My mom used to tell me that leaving the lights on in your car was illegal! And she’s my mom, soo she knows best. [pause] I’m unsure if this was, a credible source, [laughter] but to be fair, yes. All mothers are...
KARISSA: Still appealing to authority so I guess it makes sense but...
SARAH: True. [laughter]
ELENA: Another fallacy is an appeal to emotion, which is defined as aiming to manipulate, manipulate emotions or evoke an effective response in order to gain acceptance, as opposed to using logically compelling evidence. This can involve appeals to pity and compassion, um which are among the most common forms of this argument. And, I'm trying to think of a specific example because this has definitely, been used. I feel like it’s used when people are trying to make themselves the victim in a situation.
KIMBERLY: Yes, yes.
ELENA: Even if like they were clearly in the wrong. Because it’s a very easy way to just like flip the logic of the situation and be like well I was inconvenienced and like this ruined my day. Like I guess a specific example would be like every, one of my friends is a barista and has had so many experiences with this where like people just completely, I guess appeal to emotion if their order is messed up or something. And it becomes all about how like, they were having such a bad day and their day has now been ruined by this coffee, which is just like such a minor thing so.
KIMBERLY: I hate to say it, but as a Cancer, as a very emotional person, there- I can admit, I can be held accountable uh, for times when I made an appeal to emotion. Uh because I was desperate and because I so wanted to be in the right. And I also wonder, obviously my astrological sign does not justify the things that I’ve said, but uh, this is just so forward for my zodiac homies. But I also think it’s a learned trait, if I am to respectfully call out my mother, who I grew up watching and witnessing her appeal to emotions, uh in many different instances in order to get what she wants because, not to feed into the stereotype, but my mother really did get everything that she wanted. And she was always more than happy to, [chuckle] God, to really pull out the cards whenever someone has like inconvenienced her or wronged her in some way. And um I just think it’s a very, it’s a parental instinct to be like well I am a parent, I have a child, you’re not going to say no to me in front of my child, in front of my six-year-old uh, daughter. But um, yeah I just, I want to point that out that I think in some cases it happens naturally to individuals, I think we want to like have the person understand where we are coming from and the context that we are entering the conversation with, but it can also be super harmful and super manipulative in some respects. So be careful about what kind of emotion you are trying to convey or what kind of, um, what the implications are when you are, when certain emotions arise for you. With that being said, we are going to do another beautiful scenario written by yours truly.
ELENA: I’m sorry friend, but unless you find a more formal outfit, I can’t invite you to my party.
KIMBERLY: [Through tears] But you know how much I love my zip off pants! They’re a pair of jeans and shorts in one! [More crying]
ELENA: Those don’t count.
KIMBERLY: [Uncomfortably more crying] And scene. Wonderful acting. My theatre major’s really coming through.
ELENA: Perfect [laughs].
KIMBERLY: [Laughs]
KARISSA: Alright, so the next argument technique is the bandwagon argument, and it’s essentially an appeal to popularity. So, for example, it goes along the lines with “everyone else is doing it, so why don’t you?” or “most people believe x, so x must be true.” The bandwagon argument is often based on common belief statements such as, “everyone knows that opposites attract,” and that’s a common adage that is not the case. These are generally weak with respect to credibility, though. Um, as in that example. So Sarah, thoughts.
SARAH: I feel like maybe, like you were saying, a lot of cliches might come underneath this argument style, like opposites attract, or, you know, other cliches [laughs]. Um, let me think of one--
KARISSA: “Everybody wants to rule the world”
SARAH: Sure, you know, pull out those song references [laughs]. Yeah, but I also think it’s hard to—especially when you’re first writing an argument, or you’re in the beginning stages or just kind of learning about argumentative writing, it’s hard not to put cliches in there sometimes. Maybe that’s why, um, or—maybe that’s because they’re just so—they're cliches for a reason. Some of them are true, but I don’t think it’s potentially the strongest thing to put in an academic essay specifically.
KARISSA: Yeah, I think, um, in terms of research it’s really hard. I think it depends on what you’re writing about. But yeah, I do find this one really interesting because I think-- not to go to big with it, but the example we have kind of touches on this a little, but I think with like media and stuff this is a big one--
SARAH: Definitely.
KARISSA: It’s really easy to convince people. I think this is like one of the most convincing ones just in the sense that like no one wants to be left out of that, um, and I know even myself sometimes, taking the route of popular opinion is just easier, safer—maybe on like a lesser scale, but like yeah, I think this one’s just common because it is so convincing, and the media helps—like social media, news media helps with that as well, just like broadcasting it in the sense of like “everyone’s believing this,” like claiming it as truth, so I think that’s also an interesting thing to think about.
SARAH: Yeah, I never really thought about it that way, ‘cause like I really like that point because also you choose who you follow, and who you follow probably all believes the same thing that you believe, and they probably believe the same as each other, and so it’s definitely hard to get out of like that little bubble. It’s a really cool way to think about it. Um, our roleplaying for this argument...
Hey! Try this new coffee!
KARISSA: I thought you said you hated coffee.
SARAH: Ugh! But it’s all over Tik Tok. If I’m going to be famous, I have to keep up with the trends. Besides, if Tik Tokers like it than it must be good.
KIMBERLY: Another really interesting fallacy is, uh, referred to as begging the question. This is based on circular reasoning, generally resulting from an individual taking a certain premise for granted. So, in other words, it’s kind of like you’re going in circles with an argument. I actually had trouble trying to understand this a little bit, because it was very stated the factly definition, like, I just—you should just know what this means, and I was like “I really don’t.” But I guess it was defined—I guess, I don’t know. Elena if you have any input on this just because I really had to do extensive research on this one because I did not know what it meant.
ELENA: [Laughs] I mean, I feel like every argument my sister and I have could probably be classified as a circular, like begging the question argument [laughs]. I mean, I think it’s just ‘cause it’s like—I feel like, at least for me and my sister, we both use this when we’re trying to avoid either talking about the actual reason why we don’t wanna do a thing, uh, or yeah. I think it’s just an avoidance thing for us. So like, if I’m like “hey, can you walk the dog?” she’ll be like “no, I can’t walk the dog because I already walked the dog.” It’s just like not really giving a reason for why you should or shouldn’t do the thing or why you’re correct in the argument, it’s just kind of like inserting the circular thing, um, yeah. It’s like taking a certain premise for granted, like that premise might not necessarily be related, but you make it sound like it is relevant in this conversation.
KIMBERLY: Yeah, not that I—now that you mention it, it is just like a sibling thing because we desperately want to not do something and try to reasonably get out of it. Especially when you have a large group of, um, a large number of siblings, uh, you will desperately try to not—it's kind of like nose goes. You don’t want to do it and then the second that someone who doesn't wanna do it is the last person to touch their nose, it’s like “well I did it like this,” or, you know, “my leg is sprained,” which you should take care of, um anyway, we are going to go ahead and do our fun little scenario, and though it may not come clearly across as to how it’s being presented, just be mindful about the context of what we are saying and how you can find sort of the circular process in that. So, without further ado I will go ahead and begin.
Avatar is the greatest move ever because it is the number one top grossing movie of all time (that is a true fact).
ELENA: You really like those blue people huh? [laughs]
KIMBERLY: That second part was not necessary, but you see [laughs] I just needed person B to say something, but you see where in person A’s statement that Avatar is the greatest movie ever because it is number one top grossing movie, it ignores the sort of content that the movie actually has because it was the top grossing number. So, it’s like you’re being redundant in that sense, and you have sort of emotion. And I say that specifically about this certain fallacy just in case it wasn’t clear to those listening, so, that’s that.
SARAH: Alright, so, our next one is called the Black or White fallacy, um...oh my gosh, do you like black and white cookies? [Laughter]
KARISSA: I don’t think I know...is it like, half chocolate, and half sugar cookie?
SARAH: Yeah! Wait, have you never had one? It’s like, half chocolate, like it literally looks like a circle and it’s like half chocolate icing, half vanilla icing, it’s like black and white...black and white cookies, you’ve never had one?
KARISSA: I’ve seen them, but I don’t know that I’ve ever had one.
SARAH (in a shocked whisper): Ka-ris-sa!
KARISSA: I know.
SARAH: Gotta get on that. Sorry, I just really needed you to hear that.
KARISSA: It’s okay.
[Laughter]
SARAH: Um – so, Black or White fallacy. So, this argument style is the provision of only two alternatives in an argument when there are more options available. That is, numerous "shades of grey" are also possible, but are not addressed.
KARISSA: I do NOT like this one.
SARAH: [Laughter] Uh-oh, tell me why, tell me why.
KARISSA: Um, I just feel like...how do I wanna put this...I feel like it does not account for a lot. First of all, it excludes a lot. And just in terms of like, the situation you use it in, I think that um...it’s just not very productive, in my opinion, and like in terms of making your argument it could be productive, but I think in terms of like leading towards a solution or a specific idea, um, it’s not productive because it’s exclusionary to a lot of things. Um, I don’t like the idea that even in writing, that it has to be one way or the other, because I think that that’s not very reflective of, of life and the humanity of the person who’s writing it. Which is something that I think is, um...that I find to be really important, especially if it’s an argumentative paper, like there’s a person behind the argument; I think that’s worth considering. I think trying to pose it as one or the other isn’t always...it depends on the context, but I don’t think it’s always fair to writers or readers if you pose it that way, if that makes sense.
SARAH: Yeah, definitely. I definitely feel like also, just as a [sigh] society, we might be moving more towards this argument style, which is really frustrating because there’s no leniency towards, like, the gray, I guess, and like sense of black and white, and it’s...very scary as well, because obviously like you were saying, it...like our life is in the gray, and the fact that there’s just kind of two sides now is really...spooky. It’s really scary.
KARISSA: Yeah. Yeah, us theology majors at Seattle University are very fond of uh...the third way.
SARAH: Oh, YES, the third way! What is that?
KARISSA: So this...in terms of, like, writing in theology, it’s...you can’t do it [Laughter]. It’s almost impossible. But, I understand the effectiveness, like, if you’re trying to convince somebody of something. Yeah. It’s just not...my preference. We’ll put it that way.
SARAH: Totally fair.
KARISSA: Alright, so here is our example for this one!
KARISSA: You’re either getting pulp in your juice or no juice at all!
SARAH: Come on, Karissa, don’t be ridiculous.
[Laughter]
SARAH: Pulp! What a good word.
KARISSA: Do you prefer your juice with pulp or no pulp?
SARAH: You know...I don’t think I really care. Like, I forgot what kind of orange juice my parents got when we were kids, but...I don’t know! What about you?
KARISSA: I think it depends on my mood, but most of the time I don’t care.
SARAH: Mm. Depends on your mood, I like that.
KARISSA: Yeah. I think when I was little, it was more of like a bandwagon thing, ‘cause my sisters didn’t like pulp --
SARAH: Yesss.
KARISSA: Like, “Ew, that’s gross.” And my dad really liked it. But then I got older and I was like “It’s just...juice is juice, you know?”
SARAH: Yeah. It’s just a fruit in there, that’s what...you know?
KARISSA: Makes no difference, in liquid form.
SARAH: [Laughter] Exactly.
ELENA: Another fallacy is the Burden of Proof fallacy. So the definition for this one is when a claim is made and expected to be accepted because it has not been disproved or even adequately disputed. However, this does not mean the claim is true. As this issue often rests on potential (un)certainty, in such cases, it will require reflective judgment. Uh, which is from a source: King & Kitchener, 1994.
KIMBERLY: Apparently, apparently.
ELENA: Cited in beautiful APA style. [Laughter] Um...
KIMBERLY: I do have a bias, sorry.
ELENA: Do you have any examples, any thoughts for this one Kimberly?
KIMBERLY: I...you know, I think I also...I feel like...I think we all are guilty of each fallacy in one way or another, I think that the Burden of Proof fallacy, um, I think I probably have used it before. I think I have a way...I think my ego tells me I have a way of convincing others that what I say is true, or that like it’s very profound, or um, it’s so perfectly worded or poetically uttered, in a way that it’s like, “Oh yeah, people would believe me!” in what I say because of how I present it. But, I could be saying something so absurd, and I think there’s a lot of risk and danger in that, because then people are going to sort of look to you in the statements that you say. You know, when people start backing you up, and you have no way of proving what is said is true, then you’re in deep trouble there. I think that um, I think that, not to go back, not to sound like a broken record, but we can go back to the parent example, of you know, parents will sometimes say certain things that you kind of are just convinced are true, because they’re your parent and they know better, which is also a different kind of fallacy, which I think will be referred to or was referred, I have to check again because I’m so jumbled. But it’s also another fallacy to appeal to um, to have an authoritative figure say so. Or, um, because my mom said something when I was six years old I believed it was true. And she doesn’t have to convince me otherwise. So, yeah, that’s kind of my thoughts on it. I don’t know, Elena if you also had anything on it.
ELENA: Um, my only thought was—I think I’ve definitely used this semi-ironically but also like a little bit seriously when talking about supernatural conspiracy theories, because I think it’s kind of a fun fallacy to use, because I think it is difficult for people to argue with it because it’s kind of a known argument as you’ll see in our example. But, yeah, like definitely just when I’m learning about spooky history and things with friends and we’re like “oh, what if it was haunted,” and the one person is always like, “ghosts aren’t real,” and we’re like “are they? Prove it,” which isn’t really like an argument, but it’s kind of a challenge that they can’t really answer ‘cause how would you prove that?
KIMBERLY: That’s so interesting that you mention supernatural occurrences because our example is—it pertains to that sort of genre of things [laughs] if you will.
ELENA: [laughs] just genre
KIMBERLY: Genre. I don’t know why I try and like supplement my words with more words that also just come to me--
ELENA: Academia. It’s academia baby [laughs]
KIMBERLY: I know [laughs] Oh man, without further ado, we’re gonna do a little scenario for you portraying the Burden of Proof fallacy. Take it away Elena!
ELENA: I think I saw a UFO! I definitely saw a ship.
KIMBERLY: Aliens aren’t real.
ELENA: Can you prove they aren’t?
KIMBERLY: Guess not.
And scene. That was beautiful. That was truly—the acting in this, in all of these I’m--
ELENA: Incredible.
KIMBERLY: excited for everyone to listen to all of them one after another [laughs].
KARISSA: Alrightly, so our next argument technique is called Card Stacking, and it’s a method of argumentation in which important counter arguments are purposefully omitted or left out creating an imbalance of evidence to bias in the argument.
SARAH: Ah! [chuckles] Okay, so this one would be like--do-do-do-do—if you only kind of argued like one way and you don’t think about the counter argument kinda thing?
KARISSA: Yeah, or it kinda seems like you leave out information, so like, I guess if you over emphasized the pros of something, and like didn’t touch on the cons.
SARAH: Gotcha.
KARISSA: Yeah-- is what it sounds like. Or just like being really sneaky or skillful about the way that you address the counterarguments, where it’s like “oh, there’s nothing bad about what I’m pitching to you, even though there potentially could be.”
SARAH: Hmm. I don’t know I feel like—I think I had a paper in like the UCOR philosophy and the professor asked us if we could like create an argument, say the counterargument, and then prove the counterargument wrong or like that is wasn’t as strong as our argument, and I definitely think if you do that it makes your argument, and just paper, stronger than if you were to just not say it at all or just leave it out. I’m not sure. What do you think?
KARISSA: Yeah, no, I think that that’s a really important part of an argumentative paper, or an argument in general, because it’s really hard to read something or listen to someone that’s so dead set on their perspective, but yeah, I think the ability to disprove a counterargument is so important because it’s even more convincing, I feel like, than some of the techniques that we’ve talked about. If you’re able to say “I understand this other perspective, but here’s why I’m still right,” sort of thing—I feel like there’s a lot more like respect in that [laughs]. I mean if you—depending on how you choose to do it, but there can be a lot of respect in that, which I feel—just disproving through like logic and through reason and stuff is a really strong way to formulate your argument, and very, very convincing, so I feel like this one, maybe not overly convincing. In an academic setting at least.
SARAH: Yes [laughs]. I agree [laughs].
KARISSA: [Laughs] Alright, here’s our example for this one. You read?
SARAH: [More laughter] I’m so excited.
KARISSA: If you want a hotter bod, then take this diet pill! It’s got chemical agents that burn fat in your body and can give you awesome abs in just six days.
SARAH: But Karissa! What about all the side effects?
KARISSA: Don’t worry about those! Don’t you want awesome abs in just six days?
SARAH: Maybe not. Maybe [laughs].
KIMBERLY: So our next fallacy, ironically is referred to as the Fallacy Fallacy, and this is defined as dismissing a claim, which may be true, altogether solely because it has been poorly argued. An example illogical or with suspect evidence, or because a fallacy was used when arguing its case. Now, this one was also another tricky one for me because the redundancy really threw me off, so I’m gonna pass it to my costar Elena Selthun to go ahead and give their thoughts on the Fallacy Fallacy. Take it away Elena.
ELENA: I feel like all of the examples that are coming to mind are just based off of the examples that we have here because like [laughs]. But yeah, I don’t know. I think one example I can think of is, I had this conversation with a friend about like GMOs and yeah, I think what she was arguing was that GMOs are good actually because—or like are not a problem and I was like trying to make the argument that like no GMOs are a problem because they cause—they like screw up other crops basically, but she was like disagreeing with it, not because of that. She was disagreeing with it because my argument wasn’t very good [laughs] and she—it was kind of like we weren't really hearing each other as well, so yeah. I don’t even know what conclusion we came to with that because it’s not like it was a super important argument either, but it was a lot of just like I had kind of confusing reasoning for it and she was like—didn't know all of the GMO facts that I was bringing into it badly, but like, yeah. So, I guess that’s my example of it. I think it’s like when there’s a disconnect between two people, like somebody may have an argument that’s technically true, but like, maybe they’re saying it in an incorrect way or just not explaining themselves well, so the other person who already disagreed with that argument is like not hearing that.
KIMBERLY: Yeah, thank you Elena. No words were ever beautifully spoken than that. Um [laughs] I can’t offer any more input than that. That was actually very eloquently said. I’m so sorry if you hear me kinda rub my eye and spread germs all over. Bad habit, I know. Don’t do it [laughs]. In that case we are going to go ahead and give an example of the Fallacy Fallacy in hope that you can also find connections, because I think that this is sort of a—I think as Elena mentioned, it seems very common in different, in certain discourses, especially ones where like there are obviously very two distinguished parties and are trying so desperately to provide evidence, and I think there’s just a lot of—the word of the day is implications—there's a lot of implications of that, and you want to be mindful about it. So, we’re gonna go ahead and do a little theatre, again, for the umpteenth time.
These vitamin gummies are vegan, therefore they’re so much better than the artificial flavored ones.
ELENA: Just because it’s vegan doesn't mean it’s automatically better than the regular brand. You’re wrong. It’s just vegan for those who are vegan.
KIMBERLY: And scene.
SARAH: Alright, so our next argument style is called the False Cause Argument, or also known as Correlation, not Causation for all of you psych majors out there, all those stats people, those math people, those-- all people. It refers to the assumption that because two things are related means that one causes the other. So for example, if 100% of murderers drink water, therefore drinking water causes people to kill. Karissa, thoughts? Feelings?
KARISSA: Feeling this is very common, very convincing. I feel like the examples we have are a little bit drastic [laughs]
SARAH: [Laughs] Are you sure?
KARISSA: I don’t know [laughs]. But I think, like, in terms of smaller scale, no one is getting harmed here-
SARAH: Right.
KARISSA: It can be convincing, especially if it’s not exclusively like using numbers, if it’s just more of like logical, reasonable connections I feel like it can be really convincing and hard to be like “hmm, wait a moment.” But yeah, what about you? What do you think?
SARAH: Yeah, just kind of the same thing, I do remember I took like...just an Intro to Psych class and also my Stats class was always like “correlation does not equal causation!!!”
KARISSA: Mhm. Yeah, I think this is what I noticed showed up most in my life.
SARAH: [Laughter] Yeah? Like in your day to day?
KARISSA: Yeah, I don’t know what it is, but like there’s a lot of times in my mind where I’m like “correlation, not causation...” just like every day, I don’t know why.
SARAH: I like that reminder.
KARISSA: It’s good to have...have stored away, here. You never know when you’re gonna need to whip it out.
SARAH: Whip it out...[Laughter]
KARISSA: Like in this example:
SARAH: Here we go. Nice transition.
KARISSA: Every time I leave the party, it ends soon after. Therefore, I truly am the life of the party.
SARAH: It was one time! And most of us were just tired!
[Laughter]
SARAH: I will say though, in real life, Karissa Lopez, 100% life of the party.
KARISSA: Oh, thank you.
SARAH: Ends after she leaves.
[Laughter]
ELENA: Okay, our next fallacy is called the Gambler’s Fallacy. And the definition for this one is...it’s referring to the belief that streaks affect statistically independent phenomena. So basically, there is a one in two chance of a coin landing tails up, so based on this assessment, some might say if heads come up on the first flip, then it seems likely the coin will come up tails on the second flip. But this would be an incorrect assessment of probability, because coins do not have a memory, so it’s not gonna change. The same goes for roulette wheels. Every flip and every spin is new and so it’s not dictated by what happened previously. Thus, the probability of flipping a coin and getting tails eight times in a row is the very same as getting HTHTHT, etcetera. The conceptualization of the gambler’s fallacy is quite like the Representativeness Heuristic. Also cited from Kahneman, 2011.
KIMBERLY: Yes. Again, these are all – this is all from that one Psychology Today article, so... [Laughter]
ELENA: Love that, love that. Yeah, so...I mean, Kimberly and I both play Dungeons and Dragons. [Laughter]
KIMBERLY: We do.
ELENA: And the Gambler’s Fallacy is alive and well, uh – it's hard not to be when you’re, you’re rolling dice and you’re just really hoping. Like, so, basically in D&D if you get – you can get a 1 through 20; if you get a 1 it’s really bad, if you get a 20 it’s really good. So, if you keep getting 1s, then that’s very bad luck but it doesn’t mean that you’re more likely to, you know, get a 20 on the next roll, because you’re like, “Wow, I deserve this!” You know? But...I don’t know, Kimberly, if you have more to add to that.
KIMBERLY: No, I think, uh...while it is true that especially players will want – will think! -- that dice, the dice is going to be in their favor, um, unless you’re notorious for having bad rolls, like a certain...myself, for an example, um, you know, it’s, it’s hard, to...it’s hard to exist in a world where we are dictated by a certain object that tells us...that dictates whether we are successful or a failure in a certain situation, and you’re a competitive person. Now for myself, I’m a very competitive person. As we have found out, in this group, that Karissa and I are very competitive people! And I think there is a lot of...situations where, um, there are opportunities to be incredibly cocky and times where you get really upset and you think to yourself, “Well if I keep losing a certain amount of times, I’m bound to get a win.” Um, if you’ve ever played 8 Ball with any of your iPhone friend users, you will know that sometimes – sometimes – you lose, and hope that the next game that you play that your friend persistently tries to tell you to do with them, you hope that you will win. Uh...and it takes a lot of – and I think it ignores, sorry, going back and forth between my words – I think this fallacy sort of ignores what it means to like, have skill in certain areas, but also like, this is referring specifically about like, coin tossing! Or roulette wheels, or dice rolling, for D&D nerds. I think there is a certain...where this applies to, there is a certain amount of like, just...just uh, complete ignorance or surprise to whatever the object is going to be a result of, or like, whether it’s going to be your heads or your tails. And I think there are other moments where you’re actively trying to compete in an activity, that uh...you just hope that your level of experience in a certain task will give you a win, or will continuously give you a win, even after you’ve gotten a loss. It made sense in my head to say those things, and I have Elena’s head-nodding to affirm me, because a year of doing this kind of thing, you’d think I would – you'd think I would learn! [Laughter]
ELENA: No, that makes sense, yeah!
[Laughter]
KIMBERLY: Alright, with that being said, we’re gonna – we're gonna go ahead, again, for another round of...2 second theater, with Hoo’s At The Writing Center podcast group. Take it away.
ELENA: Obviously I lost this round of chess, which means I’m going to win the next one.
KIMBERLY: Or maybe you should practice more? This is your third loss...
KIMBERLY: Go ahead and place your bets down below in the comments section, to see who would win in a round of chess, Elena or myself. Uh, let’s just say, I know how to play chess.
ELENA: Yeah, I don’t, so...
[Laughter]
ELENA: Anyone who betted on me, I’m sorry, you just lost.
KARISSA: Next argument technique is the Middle Ground Fallacy, this is almost the exact opposite of the black-or-white fallacy. For example, when two alternatives are proposed, generally one on each extreme end, the middle ground fallacy incorrectly supposes that the truth must rest somewhere in the middle, or like in the shade of grey. However, it could very well be the case that truth rests in one of the two extremes.
SARAH: I think this is really funny, I don’t know if I’ve ever... [laughing] This is a funny one. I don’t think I've ever really had a problem with this one, the fact that someone is so set on the middle ground instead of the extremes I think is the opposite of what we usually deal with and so, I don’t know it’s kinda funny, what do you think?
KARISSA: Yeah, no, I agree with you cause this is how I think a lot of the time. [laughter] I tend to be a very non-confrontational person, um, I’m the middle child so...
SARAH: There we go, there we go.
KARISSA: Yeah, I feel like a lot of the way I think or approach an argument or conflict is very like, compromise, in the middle. I mean obviously it’s different if I’m typing away like “I’m right and everyone else is wrong” then I can take an extreme end. But I feel kind of weird cause this is where my brain immediately goes, even when I’m wrong.
SARAH: Moving into our example for this, middle ground fallacy, Karissa’s favorite.
I think lying is never acceptable, honesty is the best policy.
KARISSA: Well, I believe that lying is okay whenever you feel that you need or want to. You can’t tell me you’ve never lied before. [pause]
SARAH: Mmm, then I suppose it is okay to lie sometimes!
KIMBERLY: Moving the goal posts, that is another fallacy that refers to adding related propositions with just enough content altered to continue an argument, in order to avoid conceding after the initial claim had been successfully counter argued. Similar argument types that fall under this umbrella of fallacies include Special Pleading and No True Scotsman, which I do not believe is mentioned in this episode but feel free to look it up and see the similarities between the two. Moving the goalposts, I don’t think I’ve encountered this one as much but I think it definitely is a tactic of younger audiences when it comes to trying to prove yourself, um worthy or appeal to a certain group, to earn someone’s approval. And I say this specifically when—I don’t know if this has happened to you, Elena, but when I was in elementary school, and the teacher would ask to, like, carry something heavy or like, you have to, like, put up your chairs and stuff and I, living in a world where women are regarded as weak...weaker beings, I had to prove myself often that I was strong, and that I could put up my own chair, that I could put up TWO chairs, if I wanted to! And I think I was so consistently contested with that because of my identity as a woman. And I think being a fifth grader, that sucks [Through laughs] and so, like, boys would be, like, “Okay, if you can do that then, like, I dare you to, like, punch me or whatever or beat someone up” and I’m, like, I’m not gonna do that, first of all! And then all of a sudden, they take that as an excuse to call you weak because you can’t do this one other thing that they’ve suddenly, like, tasked you to do. That is just one mere example, Elena, I am sure you may also have another one, but I’m just saying that this is —When I was reading this one, and looking this one up, I think it’s a very popular one among younger people, but I also think it’s still pretty applicable for audiences today or you know, our generation, or whatnot. But, Elena, yeah, what do you think?
ELENA: Yeah, no, I just had to share [Laughs] an example because yours is very, like, deep and relatable, because yeah, boys are awful in elementary school about that and continuously. But this example, which just occurred to me is just kind of wild, in fourth grade I had this friend who--I don’t know if she genuinely believed this, but she was really intent on arguing that she could turn into a werewolf. [Laughs] Like— [Laughs] Like, with absolute seriousness, this eight-year-old girl would be, like, “I am a werewolf.” [Laughs] And we were, like, “How—No. Like, prove it.” So, I think she would use Moving the Goal Posts because she would always be, like, “No, no, like, you have to wait until the full moon.” And then, like, the full moon would come and—I wish I was making this up. Like, it’s somehow 100% true --
KIMBERLY: I really believe you.
ELENA: 8-year-olds are wild. So like, the full moon would come and be like, “You...what happened, you still didn’t turn into a werewolf.” And she was like, “No, no, it only happens in like, my dreams.” Like, the reasoning just got more and more like...out there, in order to make it so that we couldn’t disprove that she couldn’t turn into a werewolf. And like, I think we were unsure, to be honest, so I guess she succeeded in that.
KIMBERLY: I mean, as an 8-year-old, if someone claimed to be a werewolf, I would – maybe I would believe them! [Laughter] Um...oh, what was...I was gonna ask a follow-up question about this situation.
ELENA: Please do.
KIMBERLY: But I can’t remember what it was because I was just so enthralled by this idea of -- [Laughter] Oh! I was trying to say – what was that Vine, that was like, “In all...in all areas except...”
ELENA: [Soft cackling] “In all ways except physical, I am a wolf?” I think?
KIMBERLY: YES. That one.
ELENA: Yeah, and then he just howls?
KIMBERLY: Yeah.
ELENA: Mhm.
KIMBERLY: I think that was your, uh...that friend. That, that person.
ELENA: Yeah. I don’t know what happened to her! I hope she’s...thriving. Maybe she is a werewolf. Maybe we were all just...[Laughter]
KIMBERLY: If you’re out there listening to this podcast and you uh, you know Elena, um...I hope you’re out there living your dreams, and uh...
ELENA: Being a werewolf in those dreams, apparently.
KIMBERLY: ...living your best life. Um, I will...I will also add [Laughter] That as a child, I also have an embarrassing moment of like “I’m super special and supernatural than all of the other, you know, 7-year-olds and 8-year-olds out there.” And I was convinced -- I was a bit of an anime nerd, um, and still am, really, as a child, and I watched a lot of, certain animes, where they would portray, uh, ninjas. Uh, to have heightened abilities, and senses, and when I would play with my cousins and my siblings, all of my relatives, I was convinced that I was a ninja, and I was convinced that I could...um, whenever we would play tag, I would like, very dramatically close my eyes, and like, try to sense -- [Laughter]
ELENA: That’s incredible.
KIMBERLY: I would try and sense where they were and try to like, touch them, or like tag them, but obviously, I don’t have – I don’t know why I had to show you that I could close my eyes. But I -- [Laughter]
ELENA: The demonstration was great.
KIMBERLY: I guess – yes, I needed to demonstrate. [Laughter] I needed to demonstrate that I was...uh, I do have heightened abilities, and that, for some reason, uh, the uh, the genes that I have in my body were very drastically different than my sister and my brother. Um, I just got the great ones, you know? And I remember being convinced of, uh, doing that. And I think I probably, uh, did it in school, in the playground. Like that, that was – I was that weird kid that was like, “Look at me! I’m really cool and special! Look at all the cool things I can do! But like – oh, it’s not working today, because like, my...I’ve not like, uh, done some meditation, or some like, sort of training that an 8 or 7 year old would do –
ELENA: [Laughter] Your secret monk training?
KIMBERLY: Yeah! I didn’t go to the mountains and like [Laughter] live in a year of solitude, no. Um, yeah, so, with that being said, we’re gonna go ahead and do a little example about movin’ the goalposts, and hopefully you can find, um...also a, uh, a memory in yourself where you try to, uh, be a werewolf or be a ninja. So...
ELENA: I actually have psychic powers, like in That’s So Raven, I can prove it.
KIMBERLY: Okay, what’s the weather going to be like?
ELENA: Mmm, definitely sunny!
KIMBERLY: [A few moments later, it starts to rain]
KIMBERLY: Um, I thought you said it was going to be sunny?
ELENA: That’s not fair; you asked me at the wrong time! Technically, it WAS sunny for a little bit.
SARAH: Okay, so our next argument is Personal Incredulity. And, please forgive me if that is the wrong pronunciation, but! This argument style refers to the dismissal of a claim by an individual due to a lack of understanding of either the claim itself or the supports for that claim. So for example, an individual’s dismissal of evolution because they don’t understand it. Oh. My. Goodness. Karissa, this is the one. [Laughter] This is the one; we’ve definitely all heard it, people getting very defensive, or very...shutting you down because they don’t understand something that you’re saying, and it’s frustrating, ‘cause then they’re just not asking you what you’re talking about! They’re not asking you to clarify, they’re not asking you to define, but it’s like, “Nope, that’s actually wrong!” [Laughter] “Your big words don’t make any sense!” Or...you know?
KARISSA: There’s nothing like an argument that gets so heated, and you’re like, going at it, finally for someone to be like, “Wait, just explain it one more time.” And then you explain it to them and they’re like, “Oh my god, wait, yeah. Like I totally agree.”
SARAH: [Loud sigh]
KARISSA: Why did they just waste our time? Why did I get so worked up--
SARAH: Yeah.
KARISSA: -- when it was just a misunderstanding?
SARAH: Mmmhmm.
KARISSA: This whole time. UGH.
SARAH: And it’s really frustrating too, I don’t know if you get into this, but like, just with older generations, like our parents or our grandparents, like if we use a specific word, or like talk about something that they didn’t grow up with – and like, I feel like they’re almost embarrassed to ask for clarification, for help, because you know, they’re older than you, and like, “wiser,” but like, you know, new things are happening every day, and just to...learn from your children or grandchildren is...okay! But they don’t think that! So, then they get very defensive, and not just parents or grandparents, just anyone older than you, totally fair. But [sigh].
KARISSA: This is my parents’ favorite one.
SARAH: [Laughs]
KARISSA: Especially my dad! I don’t think he listens to the podcast, so I can say that, but--
SARAH: [Laughs]
KARISSA: -- Yeah, this is definitely fun!
SARAH: Yeah, it’s...It’s a rough one. [Laughs] It’s a rough one. Our example for this argument style: “I think the moon landing was fake.”
KARISSA: There are pictures, though.
SARAH: Yeah, and we also have photoshop and greenscreens, so there’s no way we could have sent people beyond earth! Come on! Okay well, can I... [Through laughs] Can I interject?
KARISSA: It can’t be built upon because if you don’t understand the science behind sending someone to the moon, then it would make sense. But if you were, like, just “ultra-conspiracy-theorist,” I feel like that’s another argument to be had [Laughs].
SARAH: There are definitely a lot of conspiracy theories out there, but that doesn’t mean that they’re true necessarily.
ELENA: So, the Slippery Slope Argument is the next fallacy. So, a Slippery Slope Argument is an argument that concludes that if an action is taken, other negative consequences will follow. For example, “If event X were to occur, then event Y would (eventually) follow; thus, we cannot allow event X to happen.” This is pretty difficult to refute because it isn’t possible for us to see into the future and guarantee that the subsequent event won’t occur. Often, after critically thinking about patterns in human history, it may be that the subsequent event is likely to happen, in which case, the slippery slope argument may not actually be illogical. However, such judgment depends on the context of the argument. Regardless, what makes the argument fallacious is that it avoids engaging the argument at hand. It adds a component that isn’t really relevant to the initial argument. Furthermore, the added component is generally pretty emotionally loaded (for example fear-evoking). Do you have any thoughts?
KIMBERLY: [Overlapping] Um--
ELENA: [Overlapping] I feel like college is a Slippery Slope Argument [Laughs]
KIMBERLY: I will say, yes, I do think college [Through laughs] is a Slippery Slope. I think it’s just a perpetual-- [Laughs] I think it’s a perpetual, like, sort of series of events that it’s like, “If I don’t do this then I’m not gonna achieve this and I’m not gonna achieve that” and then, like, so on and so forth. I think because as college students, we’re constantly thinking about the workplace post-grad[uation]. I think there’s a lot of slippery slopes, and I think I am definitely guilty of a lot of these—Of this kind of argument, even outside of college. I think earlier today I had two of my siblings show me their grades and they don’t have the best grades at the moment – and again, this is subjective when I say “don’t have the best grades” I mean they are on the border of failing according to their school’s sort of standards – and I had this whole sort of preachy moment to them because they’re young and I was trying to, like, allude to, like, “grades don’t define you” but also, we live in a world where [Through laughs] they do define you. And like the workplace and colleges are going to look at your grades and they’re gonna be, like, “Oh, this person is adequate enough to be a part of my institution or be a part of my...be a part of the college or the workplace” and people are going to, unfortunately, they’re going to judge you and they’re gonna look at you. And so, it is this moment that I was—I wasn’t trying to scare them. I think I may have done that and I didn’t mean to. But I think there was a moment of, like, “If you don’t get good grades now,” - and they’re middle schoolers - “if you don’t get good grades now, you’re not going to be going to the, like—Your—You're not gonna achieve your ambitions” that they want because both of them are both interested in art school for different arts...different art forms. But I was, like, you know art school might still look at your grades and still think you know “if this person’s got a couple of failing grades then maybe they’re not the one to be in our institution.” And I think that—I think we also just, in general, we live in a society where we feel that one event is directly going to affect another and we’re sort of—We live in this timeline that if we don’t achieve these things, then the next big thing won’t happen for us. But, Elena, if you have anything to add as well.
ELENA: I mean, I think that pretty much sums it up. Um, yeah, I feel like this argument is made a lot when it’s like you’re overwhelmed, whether it’s because it’s happening to you, or your siblings, or like somebody you care about, and you maybe either want to scare them a little bit, even if it’s like subconsciously. I feel like it shows up a lot then. But yeah, that my example, so we have another little skit.
Hey Kimberly let’s go to the party, it’s Friday night!
KIMBERLY: I can’t. I have a huge test on Monday and if I don’t study all weekend that means I’m gonna fail this class, never graduate, and never become successful.
ELENA: It’s one test! Don’t let it ruin your life.
KIMBERLY: Scene. Just reiterating again that these are all exaggerated examples and do not directly reflect the thoughts and beliefs of the Hoo’s at the Writing Center, or Writing Center in general, or Seattle University. We are acting!
KARISSA: Our next argument technique is called the Strawman Fallacy, and it’s misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack. So for example, someone in opposition to your argument refutes it often irrelevantly by claiming that you’re arguing in favor of something else. In this case the something else quote unquote is the Strawman and the opposition has purposefully built it in order to make it easier for them to refuse your stance even though there's something else was never argued for in the first place. So simply put, a Strawman is built so that it can be knocked down, but a Strawman is not directly representative of your argument.
SARAH: Honestly, when I listen—when I hear you talk about this one, I’m thinking more of like a debate almost.
KARISSA: Mhmm.
SARAH: I think that’s like almost how we were taught to—also I’m terrible at debating. I don’t know if you knew this. I just am very like hesitant and I get really anxious or whatever, but yes. So I feel like this argument is really how we were taught to debate, so like no matter if they say it or not just kind of blaming something else, like completely aside the argument really almost defeats your opponent, even in some way, just to kind of like discredit them almost... if that makes sense? And I think the example that we have here if we wanna read it really quick, does a good job of showing that, so if I were to tell Karissa:
I’d rather go to the movies than go to dinner.
KARISSA: Why do you hate socializing?
SARAH: I don’t, though. I just felt like watching The Avengers.
[Laughter]
So, her kind of bringing me down [laughs].
KARISSA: Accusing you of not wanting to talk to me.
SARAH: Exactly, exactly. Um, I think it’s a great example, but what are your thoughts? How do you feel about this one?
KARISSA: Yeah, I feel like similar to you—what you said before, it’s kind of how we were taught to debate, ‘cause I feel like—maybe it’s just the word refute, but that is like debate terms.
SARAH: Mm.
KARISSA: And the whole premise is like knocking someone else’s argument down. So yean, I feel like it can be kind of like correlated with jumping to conclusions, especially in the example it’s like “oh you don’t want to talk to me, that’s why you’d rather go to the movies.”
SARAH: Mmmmmm. Mmmm.
KARISSA: And it’s like, no there’s always some sort of reasoning behind that, you know.
SARAH: It’s almost like also very insecure in the way that you just put it kind of like “oh you don’t wanna do this” and it’s like “no I didn’t say that.”
KARISSA: Yeah.
SARAH: Very quick to pounce, to judge.
KARISSA: Mhmm. Which is why it’s so good in debate ‘cause then you can catch people off guard and be like “whoa, whoa, whoa,” and they can’t always defend themselves, so I guess, if you wanna go into debate...
SARAH: [laughs]
KARISSA: I’m no expect or anything, because I’ve lost every debate I’ve had to perform [laughs].
SARAH: Me as well [laughs].
KARISSA: But I mean this seems like it could work.
SARAH: Exactly.
KARISSA: Do it. I didn’t and use this in your debate.
SARAH: [Laughs] love that. In every debate I’m always just—I'm either really quiet, don’t say a thing or I’m like “WHOA, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, let me--” [laughs]
KARISSA: Let me step on your toes really quick.
SARAH: Yeah, let me back it up.
[Overlapping laughter]
KIMBERLY: With that being said, we are going to go ahead and talk about our last fallacy mentioned for this episode, and I have failed to look up the pronunciation for this.
ELENA: Yeah, it’s Tu Quoque.
KIMBERLY: Tu Quo-- Tu Quoque. Tu Quoque. Thank you.
ELENA: Yeah, it’s Latin.
KIMBERLY: Thank you English major. Um, [laughs] Tu Quoque is translated from Latin as “you too,” or the argument of hypocrisy, refers to avoiding refutation or critique by reverting the same criticism back on the accuser, without addressing the initial refutation. Refutation, that is a funny word. Another way of looking at this fallacy is as challenging a claim by asserting that the claimant’s behavior is inconsistent with the conclusion they have drawn. In this context, it is a type of ad hominem that rejects a proposition based on the traits of the claimant. For example, in response to the claim that "Eating fast food is unhealthy": “But I saw you eat a burger and fries for lunch only a few hours ago!" Is an example of Tu Quoque. Wow, you learn something new every day [laughs].
ELENA: Yeah, I definitely use this with my roommates when we are accusing each other of not getting enough sleep [laughs]. Specifically, my roommate will be like “what time did you go to bed?” and I’ll be like “oh, 2a.m.” and they’ll be like “you need to sleep more,” and I’ll be like “do not be a hypocrite, I know you were awake at X amount of unreasonable time,” and then it doesn’t go anywhere because it’s just two sleepless people calling each other out, so [laughs].
KIMBERLY: Welcome to the world of college students and friendships in college [laughs], which is “I care about you, but you need to stop doing this really bad habit,” and then the other person is saying, “I really care about you, but you can’t be a hypocrite and tell me to stop doing this bad habit because you are also an instigator for doing this bad habit,” and it’s really fun. But also, we should all get enough sleep, let’s make that clear. If we’re going to endorse something it’s going to be you should get eight hours-ish of sleep. And that is also a Tu Quoque because I do not get enough sleep at all [laughs]. Anyway, we’re gonna go ahead [laughs]
ELENA: [Laughs] Com 'on Kimberly let’s do it.
KIMBERLY: Elena, you should really stop dabbing, it’s so old fashioned.
ELENA: Kimberly! I saw you dabbing like a week ago, hypocrite!
KIMBERLY: More like right now [grunts].
ELENA: Wow. Kimberly just dabbed. Just so you know [laughs].
KIMBERLY: Listen [laughs], I’ve stopped doing it. I’ve done more of a whoa than a dab. I know Elena’s disappointed in me--
ELENA: Yeah [laughs]
KIMBERLY: But I feel like if I can also call out someone in the Hoo’s at the Writing Center podcast team it’s also Karissa, let’s be honest. She’s also guilty of these things. We are what you call: the Tik Tokers of the group [laughs].
ELENA: Is that a title that you wear with pride or...? [Laughs]
KIMBERLY: No, not at all [laughs]
ELENA: Just painful self-awareness [laughs some more]
KIMBERLY: I’m just painfully aware that I spend too much time on Tik Tok and I’m trying to keep up with all the latest trends and gestures that we have [Laughter] Uh, and dances! But dances are a lot harder! You know? It’s a lot of choreography and effort, and, you know, I’m -- there’s only so much that I can do as a...an influencer [Laughter]
ELENA: You heard it here first, folks, Kimberly’s an influencer now. [Laughter]
KIMBERLY: Yeah, I am an influencer – I'm a...I’m a “bring back the hipster” influencer. You know? Where are the hipsters at?
SARAH: Okay, so – while this list does not include all the many different techniques out there, we hope that it will give you a sense of what to use and more so, what to avoid, so that you look credible!
KIMBERLY: Be sure to check out our first episode of the HATWC Podcast where we talk about ADHD and Neurodivergence with Ali Shaw! If you have episode ideas that you would like Hoo’s at the Writing Center to do, fill out this Microsoft Form, which will be in the description box down below or above, depending on how you are listening to this episode!
SARAH: Additionally, check out our Writing Center blog for transcribed versions of episodes and for posts by our own Writing Center Staff! Read posts like “The Great Toni Morrison” by Sabrina Klindworth or “’Green Thumbs’ Are a Myth” by Elena Selthun! And both of those wonderful people are on our podcast team now! Woo woo WOO!
KARISSA: Follow our social media @suwritingcenter on Instagram, Seattle U Writing Center on Facebook, and @writingcentersu on Twitter!
ELENA: With that, stay safe, take care of one another, and this has been another episode of--
[In attempted unison]: HOO, HOO, HOO’S AT THE WRITING CENTER!
SARAH & KARISSA: We are!
[Laughter]
SARAH: Yeah, yeah!
[OUTRO PLAYS]